Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the defendants (appellants) against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court granting a decree of permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff (respondent). The plaintiff had sued for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over two plots of land bearing Survey Nos. 181/2 and 182/0 in Village Sal, Bicholim, Goa. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendants then filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and that the defendants had failed to prove their title or prior possession. The High Court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the findings were based on evidence and were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court in second appeal can only interfere if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court on possession and title cannot be re-opened unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-5)
B) Property Law - Injunction - Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove his possession and that the defendant has no better title. In this case, the plaintiff succeeded in proving possession through documentary evidence and witnesses, while the defendants failed to prove their title or prior possession. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate court erred in confirming the trial court's decree of injunction in favor of the plaintiff/respondent, and whether any substantial question of law arises in the second appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the concurrent decrees of injunction in favor of the respondents. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Injunction
- Possession
- Title
- Concurrent Findings
- Second Appeal
- Substantial Question of Law
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (01) 104
Second Appeal No. 55 of 2003
Mr. Parag Rao and Mr. V. A. Rao for the appellants; Mr. Prasheen Lotlikar and Mr. C. Padgaonkar for the respondents
Vaman Govind Raut (since deceased) through legal heirs and others
Sitaram Narayan Raut (since deceased) through legal heirs and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent decrees of injunction in a property dispute.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (defendants) sought to set aside the concurrent judgments granting permanent injunction in favor of the respondents (plaintiffs).
Filing Reason
The defendants were aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and that the defendants had no right to interfere.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit for injunction; the first appellate court confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether the lower appellate court erred in confirming the trial court's decree of injunction?
Whether any substantial question of law arises in the second appeal?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the courts below erred in granting injunction without proper consideration of title and possession.
The respondents supported the concurrent findings and submitted that no substantial question of law arises.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court can only interfere if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact on possession and title, if based on evidence, are binding and cannot be re-opened unless perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
The predecessor-in-title of the respondents herein (the original plaintiff) sued the appellants herein (defendants) for injunction against interference of their possession in the suit plots of land, stated to be bearing Survey Nos. 181/2 and 182/0 of V...
Procedural History
The original plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in the trial court, which was decreed. The defendants appealed to the first appellate court, which confirmed the decree. The defendants then filed the present second appeal before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
